PDA

View Full Version : There's a really interesting l(/L)ibertarian debate today




Jeremy
05-20-2008, 03:56 PM
Barr, Gravel, Root, and.... guess who! Vern Mckinely even though he's obviously not in the LP or running for president. =p Go Vern! :D

And read this:


"This is the wildest Libertarian [race] in a long time,” says Reason associate editor David Weigel, who organized and will moderate the debate. "They’ve never had two [former] elected officials leave their parties and run Libertarian.”

The first one is, of course, Barr. The second is Mike Gravel, a former Democratic presidential contender and former senator from Alaska. Gravel, disillusioned with the Democrats after standing on their stage for this cycle’s early debates, joined the LP in March.

Joining Barr and Gravel will be Wayne Allyn Root, a former Republican, and Vern McKinley, a "Ron Paul Republican" who is challenging Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.).

And this is in the Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902493.html

I hope Vern or somebody gets a YouTube of this up

ryanmkeisling
05-20-2008, 04:01 PM
Barr, Gravel, Root, and.... guess who! Vern Mckinely even though he's obviously not in the LP or running for president. =p Go Vern! :D

And read this:



And this is in the Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902493.html

I hope Vern or somebody gets a YouTube of this up

Not to impressed with Barr or Gravel as libertarians, or politicians for that matter. I do not understand how they can even wear the label? It would be nice to see Ron Pauls name in there!!:D

Jeremy
05-20-2008, 04:04 PM
Not to impressed with Barr or Gravel as libertarians, or politicians for that matter. I do not understand how they can even wear the label? It would be nice to see Ron Pauls name in there!!:D

The claims that anti-Barr people have been making have been proven irrelevant or simply incorrect... why do people ignore this? We talk about sheep, but why isn't anybody listening? Talk to Bradley in DC about Barr... And also go look at Root... he was pro-war and he did NOTHING for this r3VOLution as far as I can tell. Barr was with us. You should see his introduction of RP at CPAC... it was brilliant.

ryanmkeisling
05-20-2008, 04:19 PM
The claims that anti-Barr people have been making have been proven irrelevant or simply incorrect... why do people ignore this? We talk about sheep, but why isn't anybody listening? Talk to Bradley in DC about Barr... And also go look at Root... he was pro-war and he did NOTHING for this r3VOLution as far as I can tell. Barr was with us. You should see his introduction of RP at CPAC... it was brilliant.

The thing that gets me is he is former CIA. No American should ever trust anyone from the CIA, ever. Anti-drug coordinator for the Department of Justice? I am not anti-Barr per se. I have not had the opportunity to see any evidence refuting things such as his stance on Medical Marijuana or the war on drugs? If you think me a sheep for vetting a candidate according to my own standards then so be it, you can call me dirtbag for all I care. Labels mean nothing to me, and I am just being curios. I could care less what anyone else thinks about any of this. I am just trying to understand how someone who supports the war on drugs and opposes medical marijuana is a libertarian? These things would seem to go against the very principles behind the ideology. This story is frightening to me and moreover the quotes from Barr contained therein:

http://www.mpp.org/legislation/dc/bills/barr-to-continue-fight-against-drug-legalization.html

Obama can talk nice too, so can Bill Clinton. Oratory is meaningless. Facts and more specifically previous record on issues are what mean something.

WRellim
05-20-2008, 04:47 PM
My gut response is that the TITLE to this thread is redundant. Nearly ALL Libertarian debates are "interesting" (in the sense of a "theater of the absurd" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_of_the_Absurd)) -- but they are also essentially pointless.

And since NONE of the people planning to be at that debate are truly "Libertarians" -- there seems to be the likelihood that this will not only be extra-specially-pointless, but that it will NOT really be interesting either.

Jeremy
05-20-2008, 05:02 PM
My gut response is that the TITLE to this thread is redundant. Nearly ALL Libertarian debates are "interesting" (in the sense of a "theater of the absurd" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_of_the_Absurd)) -- but they are also essentially pointless.

And since NONE of the people planning to be at that debate are truly "Libertarians" -- there seems to be the likelihood that this will not only be extra-specially-pointless, but that it will NOT really be interesting either.

By interesting I mean different.

And I guess by your definition Ron Paul isn't a libertarian either.

crazyfingers
05-20-2008, 05:07 PM
By interesting I mean different.

And I guess by your definition Ron Paul isn't a libertarian either.

Are you seriously comparing Barr, Gravel, and W.A.R.'s libertarian credentials to that of Ron Paul? Those guys might lean slightly libertarian but they lack any real principles.

WRellim
05-20-2008, 05:10 PM
By interesting I mean different.

K, I can agree with that.


And I guess by your definition Ron Paul isn't a libertarian either.

I wasn't really talking about their political stands... more that they are blatant opportunists.

Kind of in the same way that Pat Buchanan wasn't really a "Reform Party" kind of guy -- and look what his candidacy did to that party.

Hopefully the LP will have enough sense NOT to allow a repeat. IMHO, better for them to pick a long-standing member than to go for the (minor) celebrity factor of Barr or (???WTF???) Gravel.


Oh, and BTW, RP himself said many times that he is not really a Libertarian. (And I remember back in '88 there were a LOT of people -- myself among them -- who were NOT really sanguine about or sure why this "Republican" was heading the LP ticket).

LibertyEagle
05-20-2008, 05:12 PM
Barr's pretty good, in my opinion. He's not Ron Paul, but then again, no one is.

Also, it seems to me that we are starting to act like the Republicans and putting Party, before principle. For me, I could care less what Party someone is in, I care about what they stand for. I want my country back far more than I care to elevate a certain political party.

Unspun
05-20-2008, 05:20 PM
The thing that gets me is he is former CIA. No American should ever trust anyone from the CIA, ever.

I guess we can stop trusting Michael Scheuer then. He is discredited because he was in the CIA.

Not to mention Barr left the CIA in 1978, 30 years ago.


Anti-drug coordinator for the Department of Justice? I am not anti-Barr per se. I have not had the opportunity to see any evidence refuting things such as his stance on Medical Marijuana or the war on drugs? If you think me a sheep for vetting a candidate according to my own standards then so be it, you can call me dirtbag for all I care. Labels mean nothing to me, and I am just being curios. I could care less what anyone else thinks about any of this. I am just trying to understand how someone who supports the war on drugs and opposes medical marijuana is a libertarian? These things would seem to go against the very principles behind the ideology. This story is frightening to me and moreover the quotes from Barr contained therein:

http://www.mpp.org/legislation/dc/bills/barr-to-continue-fight-against-drug-legalization.html


I guess you missed this...

http://www.mpp.org/bob-barr-joins-mpp.html

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
05-20-2008, 05:29 PM
Barr's pretty good, in my opinion. He's not Ron Paul, but then again, no one is.

Also, it seems to me that we are starting to act like the Republicans and putting Party, before principle.

With regard to Barr, that's not true at all. He's been an active drug warrior. He felt so strongly about it, that he blocked vote totals from being released for a medical marijuana initiative in DC. (Initiative 59). The ACLU sued and the vote totals were eventually released, with the initiative passing with 69%. Barr was still successful in blocking the implementation, which was the will of the people as we measure it.

This is what Barr said less than 6 years ago... (May 13 2002)


There is no legitimate use whatsoever for marijuana. This is not medicine. This is bogus witchcraft. It has no place in medicine, no place in pain relief...

How can a person like that claim libertarian principles? What new information has he found since 2002 to make him change his mind?

The CIA stuff's a problem too. Did this guy just turn into a new person overnight or what? I'm not even convinced he understands the philosophy.

Unspun
05-20-2008, 05:36 PM
Money,

Please, read my previous post.

Jeremy
05-20-2008, 05:38 PM
Money, you are not up-to-date on Barr's stances. Talk to the member here Bradly in DC... he knows a lot about Barr.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
05-20-2008, 05:42 PM
Money, you are not up-to-date on Barr's stances. Talk to the member here Bradly in DC... he knows a lot about Barr.

I'm up to date on his history.

How about this... You can take the sum of things I've done in my life and make a reasonable guess as to who I am.

I can take the sum of what Barr has done during his career and make a reasonable guess as to who he is.

Exactly what has he accomplished with the MPP?

Bradley in DC
05-20-2008, 05:42 PM
Are you seriously comparing Barr, Gravel, and W.A.R.'s libertarian credentials to that of Ron Paul? Those guys might lean slightly libertarian but they lack any real principles.

I thank for leaving Vern McKinley off your list of candidates lacking principles. Vern is the real deal.

crazyfingers
05-20-2008, 05:44 PM
Money, you are not up-to-date on Barr's stances. Talk to the member here Bradly in DC... he knows a lot about Barr.

Barr has a long way to go. Here is what he wrote two months ago:



http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/printedition/2008/03/19/barred0319.html

Iraq and Afghanistan continue to enjoy top billing in America's newspapers and on our television news programs. With untold billions of dollars flowing regularly into that part of the world and American soldiers continuing to be killed there, it's no surprise our government and our media pay close attention. South America remains an afterthought for government policy-makers and news show producers. Whether we like it or not, that may soon change, as well it should.


He is not a non-interventionist. I can forgive what happened years ago, but his positions have not evolved all that much.

leonster
05-20-2008, 06:08 PM
Barr has a long way to go. Here is what he wrote two months ago:



He is not a non-interventionist. I can forgive what happened years ago, but his positions have not evolved all that much.

I didn't see the context... but just from the posted quote, he didn't say anything about intervening--just paying attention. Of course we should still pay attention to what's happening in other countries! Even if we become 100% non-interventionist, that still doesn't mean we should stick our heads in the sand.

Bradley in DC
05-20-2008, 06:15 PM
Was the debate broadcast? Is it up yet?

It was fun being there and milling around afterwards.

The drug policy people were impressed with Vern: in the super-duper lightning round with 30 second answers, Vern said, "I can give my answer in ten seconds, 'states'."

WAR scared me. Case in point, he said the first department he would get rid of would be education and gave reasonable, if too personal, reasons why. Then in another question criticized the drug war for denying government educational loans (from the agency he just abolished) to students with drug convictions. :confused::confused::confused:

Vern had the best answers on monetary policy and foreign interventions since 1991 out of all of them, IMHO.

Gravel, was, well, Gravel.

Barr was too cautious in his answers, IMHO. Good ones often, but too cautious.

In the question about what libertarian guiding book WAR chose Cato's Handbook for Congress (which we thought a bit too technical and narrow), I forget Gravel's and Barr and McKinley both said "the Constitution" (and, for good measure, Vern pulled out his well-thumbed pocket one out for show).

Before and after the event, we were all milling around (except Barr's plane was delayed or something and he showed up at the very last minute). Gravel's wife is really nice and interesting. Vern's wife Nona and son Ruben were there (his job is to give out "McKinley for Congress" stickers where ever we go, and he was good at it today too).

Some Gravel supporters were clearly pushing for Barr and Gravel on the same ticket. This was in front of Gravel's wife who seemed clearly happy about the idea.

Those were my main thoughts.

[EDIT: Other thoughts]

Favorite presidents question: WAR-Jefferson, "the most libertarian" (the mod took him to task on the LA purchase!), Barr then Gravel said GW, Vern said Reagan and Coolidge

Agencies to get rid of: WAR--Education, long riff on how he's a homeschool dad, etc. Gravel--IRS (I hope I get this right), Vern--Commerce, Education, etc., went on about Republicans in 1980 and 1994 Contract with America to cut government.

One other local RP Republican running in Maryland "asked a question" which was (admittedly) basically a short stump speech on using his alternative currency.

Immigration came up. Gravel was strong on the human rights angle, Barr was too cautious, WAR wasn't memorable (but wasn't impressed), Vern should have mentioned Nona is an immigrant, came here legally, followed the rules, etc.

WAR was the least social before the event, but warmed up afterwards (Nona hit him up for a donation for Vern--he can't give to Republicans anymore, he said).

Gravel had clearly identifiable supporters there (buttons on but less "buttoned-down"). Lots of people I recognized from Reason, Cato, other libertarian groups, George Mason University, Ron Paul Meetup people--I would guess Barr was the most popular (in varying degrees) with them (after Vern, of course :D :cool: :p ;) :))

Jeremy
05-20-2008, 06:18 PM
Was the debate broadcast? Is it up yet?

It was fun being there and milling around afterwards.

The drug policy people were impressed with Vern: in the super-duper lightning round with 30 second answers, Vern said, "I can give my answer in ten seconds, 'states'."

WAR scared me. Case in point, he said the first department he would get rid of would be education and gave reasonable, if too personal, reasons why. Then in another question criticized the drug war for denying government educational loans (from the agency he just abolished) to students with drug convictions. :confused::confused::confused:

Vern had the best answers on monetary policy and foreign interventions since 1991 out of all of them, IMHO.

Gravel, was, well, Gravel.

Barr was too cautious in his answers, IMHO. Good ones often, but too cautious.

In the question about what libertarian guiding book WAR chose Cato's Handbook for Congress (which we thought a bit too technical and narrow), I forget Gravel's and Barr and McKinley both said "the Constitution" (and, for good measure, Vern pulled out his well-thumbed pocket one out for show).

Before and after the event, we were all milling around (except Barr's plane was delayed or something and he showed up at the very last minute). Gravel's wife is really nice and interesting. Vern's wife Nona and son Ruben were there (his job is to give out "McKinley for Congress" stickers where ever we go, and he was good at it today too).

Some Gravel supporters were clearly pushing for Barr and Gravel on the same ticket. This was in front of Gravel's wife who seemed clearly happy about the idea.

Those were my main thoughts.

It took my half a minute to realize that "WAR" = Wayne Alan Root =o

crazyfingers
05-20-2008, 06:20 PM
I didn't see the context... but just from the posted quote, he didn't say anything about intervening--just paying attention. Of course we should still pay attention to what's happening in other countries! Even if we become 100% non-interventionist, that still doesn't mean we should stick our heads in the sand.


While Washington's current national security worldview remains focused like a laser beam on Iraq and Afghanistan, fires smolder and burn elsewhere. Shifting at least a portion of that concern and those resources to South America, and especially to the Andean region that currently is near the boiling point, is critical to our security. There may not be weapons of mass destruction lurking in the jungles of Venezuela, Colombia or Ecuador (there weren't in Iraq either, of course), but arms are flowing into the area. Venezuela, for example, is buying billions of dollars worth of Russian military equipment. Leftist guerrillas and narco-terrorists remain firmly entrenched in the region, and evidence that other terrorist groups are using the area for problematic purposes is mounting.

He is calling for CIA-type intervention in South America to fight "leftist guerrillas" and "narco-terrorists". I think we should be focused on averting an economic collapse and saving the Republic rather than messing with the internal affairs of sovereign nations.

mrchubbs
05-20-2008, 06:41 PM
Brad... Thanks for posting your recap of the debate. Wish I could have been there. I'll be continually checking for it to be posted. I assume it will be on http://reason.tv/ at some point.

Enjoy.

thx1149
05-20-2008, 07:05 PM
The claims that anti-Barr people have been making have been proven irrelevant or simply incorrect... why do people ignore this? We talk about sheep, but why isn't anybody listening? Talk to Bradley in DC about Barr... And also go look at Root... he was pro-war and he did NOTHING for this r3VOLution as far as I can tell. Barr was with us. You should see his introduction of RP at CPAC... it was brilliant.

I disagree with you on this. There are a lot of good complaints against Barr that people should be aware of. As far as I could tell he has not spoken up about his past very non-libertarian actions. Some of them were pretty recent and so I find it hard not to be skeptical of him as a libertarian. We already have a thread going on about him, so if anyone is interested in some of the arguments please check out the thread. Make sure you glance at Susan Hogarth's open letter and blog as well.

I do agree that Bob Barr is sounding like a great libertarian now. I'm just worried that he wasn't much of a libertarian in the past and hasn't really accounted for that.

Link to Thread about Bob Barr (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=138049)
Susan Hogarth's Open Letter to Bob Barr (http://www.colliething.com/2008/05/open-letter-to-bob-barr-some-questions.html)
Susan Hogarth's Blog (http://colliething.com/)

Bradley in DC
05-20-2008, 07:16 PM
I do agree that Bob Barr is sounding like a great libertarian now. I'm just worried that he wasn't much of a libertarian in the past and hasn't really accounted for that.

Here is a thread on his past:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136012

If you're looking for another Ron Paul, you're going to be disappointed. I don't just mean by Barr, I mean, you are just going to be disappointed period. There is only one Ron Paul. Because of that our reference point is skewed. Barr over McCain or Obama any day. ;)

ryanmkeisling
05-20-2008, 07:39 PM
I guess we can stop trusting Michael Scheuer then. He is discredited because he was in the CIA.

Not to mention Barr left the CIA in 1978, 30 years ago.



I guess you missed this...

http://www.mpp.org/bob-barr-joins-mpp.html

Scheuer has a nice book and I cannot refute any of it however I don't think I would trust him in a political role, but I am open to seeing it differently. It would take a lot as the intelligence field is full of liars, tricksters, and manipulators with a long history of proffesionally deceiving the American people, I know I have them in my family tree.

I did not know he joined (thanks for the link!) MPP but being former CIA this could be a covert move or he could be genuine, only time will tell and a year is not a lot of time. I personally will only vote for somebody who supports the absolute abolition of the war on drugs, anything else is not freedom or representative of liberty in any clear way.

I would like to know more about Vern. He seems like a fresh face not tainted by decades in government and partisan politics. Is there a transcript from the debate?

FSP-Rebel
05-20-2008, 07:49 PM
Here is a thread on his past:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136012

If you're looking for another Ron Paul, you're going to be disappointed. I don't just mean by Barr, I mean, you are just going to be disappointed period. There is only one Ron Paul. Because of that our reference point is skewed. Barr over McCain or Obama any day. ;)
I'm definitely not supporting Barr, he's not promoting the abolition of the FED. He and many others (LPers) are better than the top three but he only talks RP language when its politically expedient to do so. He doesn't have the stomach to talk about the tough issues when it's needed. He soft-peddles the message. Both Barr and Gravel are washed up politicians that are trying to ride RP's coattails to prominence. You're going to alienate real Libertarians and consequentially the Revolution by standing behind a phony like either of them.

However, RP does have someone he's been working with for years that's running for the LP nomination. I'm surprised that virtually no one has bothered to discuss this person. RP wrote Bush back in his 1st term to nominate this lady to run the FDA and consequentially privatize it. The person I'm referring to is Dr. Mary Ruwart. She's a solid Libertarian and understands the issues better than anyone else running for the LP nod. She wrote the book "Healing Our World" which is a very intelligent read that fully explains the Libertarian message. Her website is votemary2008.com and I would expect the real RP Republicans to support her for the LP nomination. If anyone is going to be endorsed by RP, it's Dr. Mary Ruwart.

She references RP on a few occasions here: http://www.freetalklive.com/files/ruwart.mp3 and her view and understanding of the FED is crystal clear. I wonder why the biggest Real Libertarian talk show in the world won't bother to waste their time interviewing Barr and co? Gee, go figure...

mparrish03
05-20-2008, 08:02 PM
Libertarians, and other third party supporters, need to get behind someone that actually has a chance of making a difference. Third parties should just focus on electability rather than minor squabbles about policy and the best candidate for electability has to be Bob Barr. Currently, Zogby has him polling around 7% nationally. Not bad for a Libertarian who announced his candidacy not too long ago. I'd say we get behind Barr based on his electability. Then when/if Barr chooses Gravel as his running mate, I wouldn't be surprised if those polling numbers jump; not to mention he has Russell Verney, Ross Perot's campaign manager. We add this to the growing amount of disgruntled Republicans and Democrats, and we get a pleasant surprise this November.

mrchubbs
05-20-2008, 08:44 PM
Libertarians, and other third party supporters, need to get behind someone that actually has a chance of making a difference. Third parties should just focus on electability rather than minor squabbles about policy and the best candidate for electability has to be Bob Barr. Currently, Zogby has him polling around 7% nationally. Not bad for a Libertarian who announced his candidacy not too long ago. I'd say we get behind Barr based on his electability. Then when/if Barr chooses Gravel as his running mate, I wouldn't be surprised if those polling numbers jump; not to mention he has Russell Verney, Ross Perot's campaign manager. We add this to the growing amount of disgruntled Republicans and Democrats, and we get a pleasant surprise this November.


Could not agree with you more.

Alawn
05-20-2008, 09:06 PM
Third parties should just focus on electability rather than minor squabbles about policy and the best candidate for electability has to be Bob Barr. Currently, Zogby has him polling around 7% nationally. Not bad for a Libertarian who announced his candidacy not too long ago. I'd say we get behind Barr based on his electability. Then when/if Barr chooses Gravel as his running mate, I wouldn't be surprised if those polling numbers jump; not to mention he has Russell Verney, Ross Perot's campaign manager. We add this to the growing amount of disgruntled Republicans and Democrats, and we get a pleasant surprise this November.

I agree with you on a lot of this but not on Gravel. He is a cancer to the Libertarian party. If he is chosen for the VP spot I will have no choice but to vote for Baldwin even though I would like to vote for a LP candidate since the LP will get a lot more votes then the CP. The number of people who dislike Gravel and would be turned off by him being nominated greatly outnumbers the amount of people who like him. Having Gravel on the ticket will only hurt them in this election and probably in the long run too because they would clearly have lost all principles or direction and many people like me would think twice about ever voting for them again. If Hillary decided to drop out of the Democratic race and run for the Libertarian nomination would you vote for her?

mparrish03
05-20-2008, 09:11 PM
I think Mike Gravel as Barr's running mate will gain the duo a lot of press and perhaps gain some Democrats to vote for the Libertarian Party (I already think a lot of Republicans will be voting LP this fall). This decision would also show bipartisanship.

CopperheadNC
05-20-2008, 09:29 PM
Libertarians, and other third party supporters, need to get behind someone that actually has a chance of making a difference. Third parties should just focus on electability rather than minor squabbles about policy and the best candidate for electability has to be Bob Barr. Currently, Zogby has him polling around 7% nationally. Not bad for a Libertarian who announced his candidacy not too long ago. I'd say we get behind Barr based on his electability. Then when/if Barr chooses Gravel as his running mate, I wouldn't be surprised if those polling numbers jump; not to mention he has Russell Verney, Ross Perot's campaign manager. We add this to the growing amount of disgruntled Republicans and Democrats, and we get a pleasant surprise this November.

I could not agree with you less. The LP must present a principled, Libertarian activist as its candidate. Anything less would blur our distinction in the political arena and further relegate us to the fringe. We need to present a clear and unmistakable alternative to the major parties.

To many outsiders, Libertarians are already viewed as Republicans-lite. The nomination of Barr would just reinforce that. Nominating Gravel on the other hand would make no sense at all, as I still don't understand how someone who promotes one-world government can consider himself libertarian (either minarchist or anarchist - the concept of one-world government is simply inconsistent with liberty).

I think it is important that we nominate someone that could never be accused of being either "liberal" or "conservative." I wholeheartedly support Dr. Mary Ruwart.

crazyfingers
05-20-2008, 09:34 PM
I think Mike Gravel as Barr's running mate will gain the duo a lot of press and perhaps gain some Democrats to vote for the Libertarian Party (I already think a lot of Republicans will be voting LP this fall). This decision would also show bipartisanship.

Gravel has ruled out running as anyone's VP. I don't think he will be able to convince many Libertarians to put him on the top of the ticket. I certainly hope not. I think if anything Steve Kubby and George Philles are the "left-libertarians", not Gravel. He seems like a liberal with anti-establishment tendencies. Frankly much of his platform should scare the sh*t out of anyone who believes in limited government and local control.

mrchubbs
05-20-2008, 09:45 PM
Gravel has ruled out running as anyone's VP. I don't think he will be able to convince many Libertarians to put him on the top of the ticket. I certainly hope not. I think if anything Steve Kubby and George Philles are the "left-libertarians", not Gravel. He seems like a liberal with anti-establishment tendencies. Frankly much of his platform should scare the sh*t out of anyone who believes in limited government and local control.

Yes, maybe I should clarify... I couldn't agree more with the Barr portion of the remarks, but if Gravel is the VP with Barr at the top, it will sully my vote quite a bit. I'm no Gravel fan.

Bradley in DC
05-20-2008, 09:50 PM
Both Barr and Gravel are washed up politicians that are trying to ride RP's coattails to prominence.

If anyone is going to be endorsed by RP, it's Dr. Mary Ruwart.

Barr joined the LP and has worked to build it before Dr. Paul intimated he would make a presidential run. Very foresighted of him to "ride RP's coattails". :rolleyes:

If you want to promote Ruwart, that's fine, but attacking other candidates doesn't build yours up. For example, I think when WAR attacked her unfairly he hurt both her and himself and the party and the movement. (And she failed in her response basically telling all parents in the country she didn't want their vote.) :(

Dr. Paul has said publicly more than once that he does not plan on endorsing anyone but that he sees his supporters going to Barr and Baldwin and he's happy with that. I realize putting your words in his mouth might make you happier, it doesn't serve the movement well. :p

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
05-21-2008, 02:52 AM
Libertarians, and other third party supporters, need to get behind someone that actually has a chance of making a difference. Third parties should just focus on electability rather than minor squabbles about policy and the best candidate for electability has to be Bob Barr.

If that's your criteria, you should get behind Obama or McCain. Both of those have much more electability than Bob Barr.

If Libertarians want to get behind a libertarian, it probably won't be Barr. He can barely talk the talk. (which isn't surprising since he's only been trying for a year or so)

LibertyOfOne
05-21-2008, 02:58 AM
Barr, Gravel, Root, and.... guess who! Vern Mckinely even though he's obviously not in the LP or running for president. =p Go Vern! :D

And read this:



And this is in the Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902493.html

I hope Vern or somebody gets a YouTube of this up

Wow a debate between three non Libertarians!!! What a hoot! One who does not support the war against another that does and the other who secretly hides his support. Sounds like such a great thing!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Bradley in DC
05-21-2008, 07:48 AM
WP article on the debate:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/21/AR2008052100038.html

LibertyIn08
05-21-2008, 09:49 AM
http://www.reason.tv/video/show/431.html <--- Video is up.

FSP-Rebel
05-21-2008, 10:11 AM
Barr joined the LP and has worked to build it before Dr. Paul intimated he would make a presidential run. Very foresighted of him to "ride RP's coattails". :rolleyes:

If you want to promote Ruwart, that's fine, but attacking other candidates doesn't build yours up. For example, I think when WAR attacked her unfairly he hurt both her and himself and the party and the movement. (And she failed in her response basically telling all parents in the country she didn't want their vote.) :(

Dr. Paul has said publicly more than once that he does not plan on endorsing anyone but that he sees his supporters going to Barr and Baldwin and he's happy with that. I realize putting your words in his mouth might make you happier, it doesn't serve the movement well. :p
1st of all, Barr building the LP by bringing in so-called conservatives (that might not like the current crop of GOPers) only serves to water down the "party of principle." Maybe Barr is a fine person at heart, but he doesn't "cut it" when it comes to Libertarian ideals. I'm surprised that out of his many non-libertarian stances, a former RP supporter has no problem supporting a man that doesn't want to axe the FED and then BSs about a troop withdrawal timetable--kinda like Obama.

As far as attacking other candidates, didn't we all go through hell and high water (time and time again) to let the public know which GOPers weren't real conservatives and listed them by name? We never attacked any other candidates? I was in Mackinac Island when we made Guliani "walk the plank" in regards to the ferry ride that he was on with us [oh, and we didn't shut up til a half-hour later when he dipped off the front of the boat (hence, walked the plank) and was "safely" back in his motorcade entourage] and I'm sure many other supporters did similar things in their neck of the woods. Maybe we should've quit right there because, according to you, it's not right to hold some phony's feet to the fire. In regards to Dr. Ruwart's response, her position is that we should honor our neighbor's choices as oppose to looking to the Feds to solve a problem for us. And, the LP helped facilitate WAR's smear on her--with Barr sitting in the background smiling and not sayin shit.

Dr. Paul may not be in the endorsement game, which is fine. But, how did you become his press spokesperson and be able to speculate out-loud as to which persons will get his remnant? Get it, the remnant? Yeah, let's just go back to normal and break up the LPers and CPers and we'll completely dwindle this Revolution back into the genie's bottle.:rolleyes: Look, it's clear that many of us are giving Baldwin the time of day because we aren't happy with Barr being the anointed LP front-runner. I figured you out of all people would understand what it's like when a party anoints their favorites and disregards, if not smears the real competition (re: Dr. Ruwart). Baldwin is a decent guy and has supported us from day one. Barr, on the other hand, has done nothing to further our cause and has languished in the background waiting for RP's REV to simmer down so he can soak up our activism and our dollars.

As I said before, RP and Dr. Ruwart have worked together for years, while Barr was voting against everything RP stood for. If you're so dead-set on Barr, I'm surprised Huckabee couldn't convince you he's a true conservative.:p

Bradley in DC
05-21-2008, 11:11 AM
http://www.reason.tv/video/show/431.html <--- Video is up.

photos too:
http://www.noelstjohn.com/reason/debate/index.htm

mparrish03
05-21-2008, 07:04 PM
I don't know about you all, but I would much rather see Barr get the nomination and get 6-15% of the national vote, than to see Ruwart get the nomination and get <1% nationally.

Bradley in DC
05-21-2008, 07:20 PM
I don't know about you all, but I would much rather see Barr get the nomination and get 6-15% of the national vote, than to see Ruwart get the nomination and get <1% nationally.

I think he could do much better. There's a lot of discontent out there waiting for the right leadership.

mparrish03
05-21-2008, 07:51 PM
I think he could do much better. There's a lot of discontent out there waiting for the right leadership.

Yeah me too. I was just being modest.

Aratus
05-22-2008, 08:23 AM
Gravel is taking issue with our good ole IRS? was he wanting a simpler regs book or is he
flat-tax or fair-tax or wanting a total complete elimination of the same? Bradley in D.C --- he may be
sincere, especially if he also has this electronic democracy impulse as well as a desire to
streamline the federal gov't. he might have actually gone the distance... this might be legit!

Join The Paul Side
05-22-2008, 11:07 AM
1st of all, Barr building the LP by bringing in so-called conservatives (that might not like the current crop of GOPers) only serves to water down the "party of principle." Maybe Barr is a fine person at heart, but he doesn't "cut it" when it comes to Libertarian ideals. I'm surprised that out of his many non-libertarian stances, a former RP supporter has no problem supporting a man that doesn't want to axe the FED and then BSs about a troop withdrawal timetable--kinda like Obama.

As far as attacking other candidates, didn't we all go through hell and high water (time and time again) to let the public know which GOPers weren't real conservatives and listed them by name? We never attacked any other candidates? I was in Mackinac Island when we made Guliani "walk the plank" in regards to the ferry ride that he was on with us [oh, and we didn't shut up til a half-hour later when he dipped off the front of the boat (hence, walked the plank) and was "safely" back in his motorcade entourage] and I'm sure many other supporters did similar things in their neck of the woods. Maybe we should've quit right there because, according to you, it's not right to hold some phony's feet to the fire. In regards to Dr. Ruwart's response, her position is that we should honor our neighbor's choices as oppose to looking to the Feds to solve a problem for us. And, the LP helped facilitate WAR's smear on her--with Barr sitting in the background smiling and not sayin shit.

Dr. Paul may not be in the endorsement game, which is fine. But, how did you become his press spokesperson and be able to speculate out-loud as to which persons will get his remnant? Get it, the remnant? Yeah, let's just go back to normal and break up the LPers and CPers and we'll completely dwindle this Revolution back into the genie's bottle.:rolleyes: Look, it's clear that many of us are giving Baldwin the time of day because we aren't happy with Barr being the anointed LP front-runner. I figured you out of all people would understand what it's like when a party anoints their favorites and disregards, if not smears the real competition (re: Dr. Ruwart). Baldwin is a decent guy and has supported us from day one. Barr, on the other hand, has done nothing to further our cause and has languished in the background waiting for RP's REV to simmer down so he can soak up our activism and our dollars.

As I said before, RP and Dr. Ruwart have worked together for years, while Barr was voting against everything RP stood for. If you're so dead-set on Barr, I'm surprised Huckabee couldn't convince you he's a true conservative.:p


:)

Bradley in DC
05-22-2008, 11:20 AM
As I said before, RP and Dr. Ruwart have worked together for years, while Barr was voting against everything RP stood for. If you're so dead-set on Barr, I'm surprised Huckabee couldn't convince you he's a true conservative.:p

You made some good points (on the Fed, etc.), but really just blew it at the end. Barr has worked more closely with Dr. Paul than Ruwart--Barr was the floor manager for Dr. Paul's Know Your Customer amendment (it was the Paul-Barr-Campbell one), eg. Barr and Dr. Paul routinely cosponsored each others bills and amendments (Ruwart just didn't have that opportunity, nothing personal against her--I don't know much about her).

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136012

Andrew-Austin
05-22-2008, 11:28 AM
There is no legitimate use whatsoever for marijuana. This is not medicine. This is bogus witchcraft. It has no place in medicine, no place in pain relief...

Did Barr have any connection to big Pharma back when he said that?